The error in your reasoning is that all these things do have external effects, but the connection between an external effect and the source is not always apparent. To specifically use the example of fraud, a great number of business operations are under forced reporting requirements for specifically this reason. Your answer to this point is flatly incorrect, as fraud cannot and is not effectively detected in this manner today.
Regarding murder, you suggest "if someone is missing, start an investigation." Of course, the error in your logic is that we do have evidence of drug crime -- and plenty of it. There is no question that Alameda county is full of grow-ops, which produce drugs for the surrounding region. I know, because I live here. There are many, many busts every year. Mountains of evidence.
The reason to limit this sort of investigation is found in the 4th amendment, and it is more than adequate when applied here. Kyllo v. United States is very clear on this point.
You have completely missed my point. I have to wonder if you are being willfully dense; right now you are violently agreeing with me while nevertheless misconstruing everything I am saying.
My point, stated succinctly: If a law cannot be enforced without violating the 4th amendment, it is not a legitimate law.
Alternative expression of my point: "When the police cannot catch you legally, they are not permitted to catch you anyway"
Application of my point: If grow houses cannot be found without using drones, which violate the 4th amendment (or should), then grow houses should be legal. Bans on grow houses should only exist if there are legal ways of finding them. If there are legal methods of finding grow houses, than illegal methods should not be employed. Of course grow houses can be found without drones, so no drones should ever be employed.
The purpose of this rule of thumb (notice that I never claim that this principle could be effectively coded into law) would be to provide the population with an effective way of telling Sheriffs to "Fuck off" when they say "We need to violate your 4th ammendment rights to enforce this law.".
Regarding murder, you suggest "if someone is missing, start an investigation." Of course, the error in your logic is that we do have evidence of drug crime -- and plenty of it. There is no question that Alameda county is full of grow-ops, which produce drugs for the surrounding region. I know, because I live here. There are many, many busts every year. Mountains of evidence.
The reason to limit this sort of investigation is found in the 4th amendment, and it is more than adequate when applied here. Kyllo v. United States is very clear on this point.